For those who copyright...
- Thread starter bill5
- Start date
I hate things like this. "Can't write? Can't play? Here, we'll auto generate a song for you and you can sign your name to it and pretend you wrote it and performed it." How repulsive. Tech has been good in some ways, but ultimately this and other such crutches just enable the wannabes to pretend they're legit and so harm the truly talented out there, who then have that much less of a chance of even being noticed.Example of a service that either retains copyright and grants you (the human composer) a limited license, or, transfers copyright — based on how much you’ve paid for the artificially created music.
/rant
becolossal
Active Member
I'm generally a pretty cynical guy and would be right there shaking my fist at the clouds with you, but the reality is this just isn't true for too many reasons to list – the most obvious being just listen to the stuff those things create. Tools are tools. Craft and taste are what make you unique.
Except things like that link above aren't tools. They are doing the creating for you. And I think it is quite possible for those things to auto-create a song which is not bad, even good (blind squirrel and all that). Have you checked that AIVA site? It literally just creates a song which can be download and someone can sign their name to it as if they actually had anything to do with it. There is zero "craft" involved. If you approve of such things, whatever, we'll agree to disagree.
Polkasound
Senior Member
It depends on how one uses it. There will be wannabe composers out there using it to create complete works on which they can stamp their name, and that's unfortunate. But I can also see AI being used by composers, especially those who are crunched for time, to spark ideas.
We all use idea sparkers. They're called other people's songs.
becolossal
Active Member
Still a tool, imo. I have checked out the AIVA site. If someone does indeed do what you're suggesting they would (download a track, pop their name on, try to get gigs), I'll take that competition any day of the week.
@Polkasound has it right, imo. AIVA, Scaler, Splice song-starters, Arcade, etc – they're all thought-starters that spark ideas. And hey, if someone manages to take any of those right out of the box and score a gig or a smash hit, more power to 'em.
rgames
Collapsing the Wavefunction
Ok. I'm gonna go register everything that's unregistered.
Then I OWN IT ALL.
Of course not
. Registering it doesn't provide any kind of proof that it's yours.In fact, if I did register it and claim ownership then I'm certain that the rightful owners could sue me even though I have the registration.
Registration is a formality. Not proof of ownership.
rgames
Bman70
Senior Member
Here's an interesting article from cdbaby that I just read out of curiosity. Most interesting is the part about potential payout per "theft" (assuming this is actually a statute and not just dependent on how good your lawyer is):
Of course the (US Copyright) laws have recently been updated as well so some of this wasn't the case when I copyrighted back around 2003. Article:
https://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-rights/copyright-for-musicians/
Of course the (US Copyright) laws have recently been updated as well so some of this wasn't the case when I copyrighted back around 2003. Article:
https://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-rights/copyright-for-musicians/
The U.S. courts/govt disagree, and pretty sure they have the final say.
? If you register it, by law you are the "rightful owner."
Again, the law disagrees...
rgames
Collapsing the Wavefunction
Check out this website:
www.spotify.com
It turns out there are MILLIONS of unregistered tracks on there. You can write some simple code that cross references the database on that website with copyright registrations and then register them all for yourself!
You'll be rich!
Or.... maybe not?
I suspect you know as well as I do the silliness of that reply, so I won't bother further. If you want to ignore the realities of the law and the situation - which I'm not wild about myself btw - have at it!
Soundbed
Music for TV
Genuine question: Can you point to actual examples where registering with the US copyright office actually benefited a small time US composer in a legal dispute? I did some Googling and found lots of cases but none of them seemed to revolve around or rely upon registering with the copyright office.Formality of what?
-----------------------------------
Its astonishing to me how many professional musicians have absolutely no clue what copyright does and what is its main purpose.
The foundation of all creative and entertainment business around the world lays strictly on copyright law and most musicians here casually treats it like its nothing really important for them. Useless law. Apparently reserved only for rich labels with large team of lawyers.
But then you read all over forums how "the industry" steals from artists, how label lawyers always win over poor artists, and on...bullshit after bullshit.
All because people were lazy to read the goddamn law.
Unbelievable really.
Last edited:
Soundbed
Music for TV
I’m also on the ‘tools are tools’ side of things. You can listen to a bunch of references, or, you can listen to an AI that has listened to even more references (presumably thousands) and cranks out a few examples of some of the ‘rules’ of that style — e.g. a sea shanty — and take some inspiration, changing however you want to make things your own.It depends on how one uses it. There will be wannabe composers out there using it to create complete works on which they can stamp their name, and that's unfortunate. But I can also see AI being used by composers, especially those who are crunched for time, to spark ideas.
We all use idea sparkers. They're called other people's songs.
There are plenty of riff generators, arpeggiator tools, chord tools and so on being sold right now. Even some melody tools like Captain Melody (from Mixed in Key) … AIVA and similar AI / machine learning tools are advancements of the same. You might hate it all, including phrase libraries, looped samples, maybe even “Evo” style recordings, but where do you draw the line? Are drum rhythms okay but melodies off limits? What if you’re writing a samba? Do you need to study Latin percussion? (Of course you should but how much is enough?)
Rather than discussing if the compositional tools available today are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ I find them interesting in the context of the legal conversation about copyright. Because the law will likely need to address artificially composed works in the next ten years. And composers will need to learn how to adapt to the changing reality of AI in the music marketplace. Many “Muzak” genre pieces may begin to emerge that are AI generated. So the onus will be on us to write what the machines cannot.
The way to do this is to have a small enough catalog of pieces in a unique style. The machine learning needs lots and lots and lots of examples to get “good enough” at writing in a style. If you have a unique style and a smaller set of works to feed the algorithm the computers cannot copy you nearly as well.
Soundbed
Music for TV
Hmm… I did not get the same impression. Or at least I think we may be reading many of the same words and having a different “takeaway”.I am new to the music world but it took me like 5 seconds to find what you couldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_plagiarism
I strongly suggest you go trough all cases mentioned in the article. Interesting reading about naivety and ignorance against well organised production system - regardless how big or small the artist is.
Also note that ALL cases in the article are based strictly on copyright law and copyright registration. No proper copyright documentation for your IP - no money.
Its that simple.
Maybe you seem to be oversimplifying, now?
If there was naïveté it seemed to be on the part of those who got sued and lost, not those who were plagiarized and won.
Which specific cases did you see that showed
? I saw many plagiarism cases involving famous composers, publishers, other countries… I’m looking for US cases where an unknown US composer registered with the copyright office and this led to them successfully winning a case case in court.
The case with ZZ Top (‘The song "Thunderbird" was originally written and performed by the Nightcaps’) is the best example of what I was seeking (although they lost). They did not register and lost their case. Very sad. But it seemed a (tiny) minority in the list.
Most cases are settled out of court. I do agree that if your work was registered AND you can show access and intent then you have the best chance to settle.
But as others have mentioned there are many ways -today- to show access and intent that don’t involve copyright registration. (i.e., my humble tune was published by CD Baby on June 17, 2014 and was later included on a genre specific Spotify playlist that had 20,000 listens when the artist’s song was recorded, and the defendant artist and album producer both have a Spotify account, so the artist had access and enough incentive to copy…etc.)
I find many people online discuss going to court as the norm when there’s a dispute. It’s not. Setting out of court with the ability to prove access and intent seem to be the norm. In today’s digital world, if you make your music public, you can more easily show that your music was easily accessible.
Thanks for the friendly discussion.
I’m not into drama or heated debate.
I can see the benefits of registering with the copyright office. But I’ve not found it much practical help to date with the majority of disputes.
Last edited:
Polkasound
Senior Member
But he made a very good point with it. There's this false notion floating around this thread that being the registered copyright owner of a song may make you impervious to losing a lawsuit. So what would stop a shyster musician from registering copyrights on unregistered songs owned by other musicians? The answer is that proving ownership of a song goes way beyond whether or not you registered a copyright. The registration gives weight and is required to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't replace burden of proof for either side in a legitimately contested case.
I think you missed his point. All of the cases required copyright registration for the plaintiff to file the lawsuit, but the question is in which of these cases did a copyright registration supersede burden of proof?I am new to the music world but it took me like 5 seconds to find what you couldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_plagiarism
If someone falsely registered one of my original songs with the Copyright Office, they'd be in for an expensive loss in court, because I'd have enough evidence of ownership to blow their false copyright registration clear out of the water.
--
These are my thoughts on copyright registration [and it's important to note here that I am a musician, not a lawyer.]
A copyright registration cannot prove who wrote a song, but it provides clear evidence of when ownership of a song was claimed, and by whom. Unless a copyright registration can be proven erroneous, it usually stands as fact. If someone stole one of your unreleased songs and claimed they wrote it, but your registered copyright for that song is twenty years old and predates any material evidence they can provide in regard to their association with the song, it's probably going to be an open and shut case.
If you make a living as a songwriter, or if you're simply an enviable songwriter who has a lot of unreleased songs in the vault to which other musician may be privy, registering the copyrights is a good idea because evidence of your ownership of those songs will predate anyone else's copyright claims. You'll want it in case you are sued, and you'll need it to sue.
But for the millions of independent artists out there like me who write and self-release songs which are well-documented and registered with PROs, digital distributors, and other services, no one is going to steal your songs, register the copyrights to them, and be able to fabricate enough material to prove you didn't write them. Their copyright registration wouldn't hold water.
For indie artists, most copyright disputes that arise – if any at all – are going to be inconsequential and handled through online complaint forms. Registering with the Copyright Office is great if you have the time and extra money, but for most, it would be a waste of money.
No he didn't. He presented some silly idea about creating some code to "steal millions of songs to get rich," which was obviously not workable from a variety of angles.
That's not the impression I get at all, but like you I'm not a lawyer.
Maybe. But I doubt it. If you're counting on that IMO you're making a huge mistake.
I think you and he still miss the point. In the eyes of the law, most if not nearly all the time, it DOES prove who wrote a song. It doesn't matter if that reflects reality or not. They don't care if you emailed it to yourself 3 years prior or have a video of you singing that song then (etc). Is that fair or logical? No. But again: U.S. legal system.
That we agree on.
I think you're dreaming. Nice dream, but a still a dream. PRO vs copyright = copyright wins at least 99 times out of 100.
Soundbed
Music for TV
Wait who are we talking about? If me, I never said that and I don’t know who you’re saying said that…?
Who is “he”? …Me? If we disagree it’s not because we miss the point but it might be worth a dialog, for education sake.
what is this dichotomy? A PRO was only part of the equation. I read that post as saying “self-release songs which are well-documented and registered with PROs, digital distributors, and other services” … are you saying these are documented in the courts as NOT evidence of copyright ownership in actual cases (non-theoretical)?
Polkasound
Senior Member
Yes, of course it's a silly idea if taken literally. You're missing the point of WHY he said it. He said it to point out the folly that simply registering a copyright on someone else's unregistered song will make you the indisputable owner gauranteed to win a copyright dispute lawsuit.
I respect your opinion, but yes, I absolutely am counting on that. The burden of proof would be on the false copyright registrant to prove that his latent copyright registration supersedes all of the material evidence I have that refutes his registration.
No, it does not prove who wrote the song. Let's say you falsely register a copyright on a song that isn't yours. The composer of the song then registers a copyright on it so he can sue you.
You now have two copyrights in dispute.
The owner brings his copyright to court plus a mountain of additional documented evidence predating your copyright, such as released albums and singles, registrations with Nielsen SoundScan, BMI, and SoundExchange, uploads to a digital distributor with UPC and ISRCs associated to the song in dispute, receipts from the CD manufacturing house, etc.
All you have is a copyright, and any material evidence you'll have will be dated later than his.
Good luck with that.
You're taking parts of my posts out of context here. It's not about PRO registration vs. a copyright registration. If you keep my posts in context, then you'll see that I was referring to a PRO registration that predates a false copyright registration as one element of evidence that, when combined with others, can defeat an errant copyright registration in court.
